Ethical question - how do you feel about second chance??

Certainly when my children were young, I did not allow them to go to a house where there was a variety of criminal behaviour, the child was very welcome at our house.
In terms of child abuse material , they will offend again.

I'm on the fence regarding it being better we don't know.
I know that vigilante "justice" has gone horribly wrong, and i don't condone that at all.
In terms though, of someone possibly having access to minors because their parents don't know... well...

Of course they should be given a second chance- what else could we do except keep them all in prison forever amen?
Child abusers are on the sex offenders register for life regardless of the type of abuse- they are monitored very closely and often find trying to re-integrate very difficult.
Whilst not defending their crimes, people need to be reassured that they aren't just 'let loose' to offend again.
If they do they're straight back to prison with much stricter conditions.

I've not got much faith in strict surveillance I'm afraid.

You're far more likely to know someone who has not told you they have been banned from driving for 6 months or a year.

Not because they have a "bad back" or "waiting for a car repair insurance claim" , excuses acquaintances of mine gave to explain why suddenly, their car is off the road. No mention of having lost his license for speeding or drunk driving.

Those are common and potentially deadly, life-changing dangers to innocent parties which some convicted people never reveal. You're far more likely to know them, than a sex offender.

If someone does offend again and goes back to prison there will be a devastating child and family left in their wake.

Only in so far as we can be absolutely satisfied that the person was convicted for a crime that showed he/she was not a psychopath.

Otherwise my answer would be no.

I assume we are talking about serious crime and not stuff like theft, fraud etc.

The only people I know who are not driving have handed in their licences due to changing medical conditions.

You may know paedophiles without realising it. They do not look different from other people nor do they wear a placard around their necks.

As others have said it depends on the offence, I know a few that have been to prison and treat them as any other person and expect them to be as trustworthy as anyone else.
There are plenty who have not been to prison that cannot be trusted.

butterandjam

You're far more likely to know someone who has not told you they have been banned from driving for 6 months or a year.

Not because they have a "bad back" or "waiting for a car repair insurance claim" , excuses acquaintances of mine gave to explain why suddenly, their car is off the road. No mention of having lost his license for speeding or drunk driving.

Those are common and potentially deadly, life-changing dangers to innocent parties which some convicted people never reveal. You're far more likely to know them, than a sex offender.

Yes, but nobody will be unknowgly getting into a car with them.

It would very much depend on the crime but also on the attitude of the individual, whether they had accepted responsibility and shown remorse.

I think some criminal activities, like getting aroused by an innocent child, cannot ever be rehabilitated or stopped.

Sime violent crimes are caused by misdeveliped brains and permanent mental illness.

Mistakes are mistakes that other people realize, regret and grow maturely.

We just have to protect ourselves, dont we.

Some crimes are so bad then no. Depends on the rehabilitation programme, prisons are dangerous places and cannot imagine how anyone survives it or if they donwould want to go back. If you are not on drugs when you go in probably will by the time you are out. Drugs are the scurge of the Earth.
I treat everyone the same and trust has to be built. people are capable, if willing to turn their lives around. Time will tell.

I would never trust anyone who abused children. No discussion on that.

Agreed, Allsorts.

I once managed somewhere , where we were asked , if not required by law to take on ex offenders. I've no problem with people turning a new leaf but what I hated was when I asked, I was told I would not be larty to the 'Types' of crimes they had commited in the past but it wouldn't be anything 'Too bad'
I'm going back about twenty years but It worried me because I worked with at that time a lot of vulnerable or elderly people , and they would leave their purses out and carelessly chat about leaving money out for the gardener and that type of thing.Their handbags and personal posessions were rarely locked away and I just worried that temptation could be put in the way of someone. I don't know if the rules have changed but I wouldn't feel comfortable unless I knew the type of crime.

Allsorts

I would never trust anyone who abused children. No discussion on that.

Yes, that would be my attitude too. No second chances for child abusers of any kind, nor rapists or anyone convicted of animal cruelty.

Every sinner has a future and every saint a past.

Back in the 1980s I became friends with a woman who had done 6 months for fraud. She tried temping but because she was honest about her offence they would not take her on. The interviewer as good as told her "go elsewhere because we do not normally check". So she went to another agency and signed on, keeping quiet about her conviction.

She had done several computer related qualifications in prison validated by a local college. No reference to prison. She also reverted to her maiden name. After 18 months temping she was offered a permanent job by one employer and went on to become office manager. Eventually she returned to her native Ireland and subsequently worked for a firm of solicitors.

I believe the solicitors knew about her past but none of the other employers did. She said it does not do to be too honest about your background. Back then (late 1980s/90s) there were not all these DBS checks so it was easy to hide a slightly dubious background. A woman could always say she was "caring" to disguise a gap on her CV and no one would question it.

My friend never re-offended and her offence was a fairly trivial one in the scheme of things. It had no connection with her employer. She did not believe that it should be allowed to affect the remainder of her life. I agree.

In general it would not bother me if someone has been in prison. If it was because of rape or anything to do children I admit it would make me feel uncomfortable and I would not want to live next door to them.

Rocketstop2 whoever had taken them on would have been in contact (at least) with a person who knew the offences - they don't want work/rehab to fail so do try to find something appropriate.

Really unless you were the owner - or someone in control of hiring I don't see why you should even know they were ex-offenders.

Not trying to be rude. Just my opinion.

From the late 80s, the government allowed local authorities to ask the police directly for checks on a small number of staff, (like those running children's home).

This eventually became the Police Act 1997, and finally, the CRB check in 2002.

From 2002 there have been checks available for those working with children or vulnerable adults.
So most people now have some protection.

I do know there are horror stories but the rehousing of sex offenders is taken very seriously.

As a senior manager, I had to 'fight' our company security manager to give a young woman a second chance. She worked in a restaurant and was taking some of the cash payments to fund her alcoholism. She was early 20's and didn't have a great up bringing (not that was an excuse but). Obviously she had been sacked from her job and had just finished a probation sentence. She went into treatment and joined AA. She paid all the money back and was helping younger adults in her situation. She came for an interview, now we had extra security checks due to being an airport company. She should have been immeditaely rejected on paper due to her 'record' but I decided to talk to her. I believed her when she said it was the drink that drove her to steal. Anyway, I spoke to security who said 'Nope' at least 3 times. I then put a case - we didn't handle cash, she would in a team where she'd always be supervised at her desk, the work output was accountable by numbers as we had data from previous employee of what was achieveable. I would take responsibility for her. He relented but strict 3 month probation period etc. She'd applied at the lowest paid job but boy she made it her own, far exceeded all targets, she made great friends, asked to learn about the next job up in her own time. After two years, she asked if she could go for promotion and I agreed. She became a brilliant employee, no trouble and just proved she needed a little faith from someone and yes, a bit more support. I would do it again but you do have to dig deep into the why and are they prepared to share their story. I hadn't asked why she stole, she just wanted everything out so people didn't feel she was hiding anything.

I hear everything people are saying. However if people aren’t given a second chance what does the future hold for then and society ?